Why does Stonewall's definition of Transgender trump all others - and does it really?

[loveyouradvice]

I find it fascinating that as "the experts" the Stonewall definition of Trans is the one that is being used everywhere... and yet why should it? If we are talking about changing laws and culture, should there not be more discussion about what Transgender actually means to us as a society?

As many have commented most think it is transsexual and are shocked to discover it includes occasional crossdressers as well as full time transgender people, the vast majority of whom keep their sex organs of birth after transitioning....

I would imagine it is because the government and media endorse them.

Stonewall has the contacts.

I dislike their definition too, but that's a battle already lost.

You might see it that way and are cavalier with women's rights. Many women here don't accept it and we will push back.

Where do Stonewall get their money? That's how you find out where.

Grant funding:

www.stonewall.org.uk/get-involved/get-involved-fundraise-us/grant-funding

Some big names on the list, inc. Comic Relief

The amount of genuine transsexuals is very small. The amount of men who enjoy cross-crossing and/or are AGP is massive.

They rely on donations. Perhaps they are trying to appeal to a greater number of people.

Lang and Satin, you're both right. It's disturbing.

I think Stonewall has become a 'halo' organisation - the struggles of the past make it beyond criticism or challenge. Now it's gone over to the dark side it's scary. It's treated with reverence as well as fear because of contacts across all parties and the power to denounce 'phonics and 'bigots'.

Totally agree with that, Imnobody.

What is their definition?

I have only become aware of the issue of self id in the last few months mainly because of this board. I am not a conspiracy theorist but it seems that this goes beyond Stonewall.
This thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3274586-Big-research-project-to-decide-if-we-still-need-sex-as-a-legal-category
discusses an apparently well funded academic research project to be carried out at King's in London about the need for sex as a legal category and there is another thread, I think about the girl sprinters/transgirls in Connecticut where the funding of five PHDs at Loughborough is discussed.
These may be isolated projects/studies, but it seems to be as if the narrative has already been decided and we will be moving to a society where sex is not recognised, just gender, which won't of course benefit women and we didn't know it was happening.

Stonewall's definition of trans. It used to also include transvestite, but still includes crossdresser.
www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms#t

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, denderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

That's my concern too, Procrastinator1

I have emailed this organisation: Women in Sport

www.womeninsport.org/our-mission/

to ask for their definition of 'woman'.

At first reading it all looks very laudable: "empowering and girls through sport and the sport sector", but it talks throughout about gender not sex.

I'll update if I get a response.

Would be interested to hear any reply, Timelady. I did say I was going to write to Tracey Crouch. Must do that.

Has this all come about under Ruth Hunt? I think Stonewall are really looking to the next frontier and have massively misidentified it. But I would guess that they are too far gone with TiMs in positions of power for that to be reversed.

That's ok though. Kids Company were massive, unassailable. But they got it wrong and they paid the price. It can happen again. I just hope there is another charity to fill the gap for LGB people.

Kids Company is an interesting example of 'follow the money'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11799675/Reports-hailing-Kids-Companys-unique-work-funded-by-charity.html

Kids company paid £40,000 towards glowing academic study while think-tank researcher was on payroll. Definitely worth a look at the sources of university research grants and other charity funding.

How were stonewall going to continue to fund itself, after achieving (brilliantly) equal marriage rights.

They needed to create a new market.

All of a sudden there was this pressing demand, this stuff mushroomed online and then they had the fix, for a fee. If you didn't buy their training/services people were "literally going to kill themselves".

Call me naive but I still think that at some point Peter Tatchell is going to go 'Hang on a sec...' he's clever, he's brave, he's not tribal - I think he's got the goods to be GC.

I think Stonewall has become a 'halo' organisation - the struggles of the past make it beyond criticism or challenge

^
^
This with bells on. So many people are conflating this with gay rights, and seem to think being Trans means full surgery. I saw a whole online conversation somehow slip away from women's safety concerns, onto how badly Oscar Wilde was treated - and how it mustn't happen again....

I also agree with diddlemethis. Stonewall has (quite rightly) secured equal marriage, adoption rights, etc. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. They have literally lobbied & legislated themselves out of a job.
What comes next?

this is a really good question.

i have so much sympathy for anybody with body dysphoria. empathy actually, as i have been through female puberty, although i am certain body dysphoria is much, much worse. leaving children out of the picture, there is obviously a meaningful discussion to be had about how much access to women's spaces / shortlists / programs trans women with body dysphoria should have. when we are told we have been sharing with them for years with no issues, these are the trans women being talked about.

but then we are informed of the much larger group of non dysphoric penis-keeping trans women. on what basis are they seeking to be allowed into the class of female? if they have no dysphoria to relieve, then the argument just seems to descend into a post modern hotch-potch of men's rights and an appropriation of racism and body dysphoria. the class of woman has been defined for a reason.

NB i think every individual has the right to call themselves whatever and dress however (i'd love a world where more men wore dresses and makeup).

• and HUGE appropriation of gay rights, obviously

Changes, I had the good fortune to live in a time when my lovers did wear eyeliner, perfume and had long flowing hair. Ah, the time of Marc Bolan and Ziggy Stardust...

I've still got a weakness for men with long hair.

ah prawn that sounds good!

the long hair does need to be washed, i'd add

Oh, it was washed. Otherwise it missed the point. Men wanted to look sexy and long hair was considered very sexy, whether flowing or in ringlets.